, 1887-10-28

planted himself squarely upon the rights
which belonged to his clients under the
fourteenth amendment, but in the latter
part he changed ground slightly and in
sisted that the first ten amendments we're
declarations of individual right, and then
that they were all comprised In the provi-
sions of the fourteenth amendment.
The attorney general opposed this view
and said so far as the petitions rely upon
anything contained in these amendments
they can have no standing in this court.
The fourteenth amendment is equally for
eign to any right, privilege or immunity
here claimed by the petitioners. TIE
record will show that the complaint is not
that the state made or is enforcing a law
that deprives the petitioners of any priv
lleges or immunities guaranteed by that
section; but that they are deprived of
rights by an erroneous construction of the
law, placed upon 1t by a trial in the court
of a state. The petitioners did not claim
in the supreme court of the state of Hi
noi5 that the act of 1874 was
to the constitution, treaties, or laws of the
United States, nor that the authority OF
the court was exercised under it, but that
the act was constitutional and valid and the
court exercised its power in violation of
Illo lah. lhC pSLlIlOueTS were JTleQsln
the courts OF the state, and that consti-
tutes due process of law. 1t is not mate
rial that this or n other court might
have ruled differently under the law.
Due process of law means the law of the
land. Mr.. Hunt believed it to be well
settled and established hat this court will
not review the decision of a supreme court
of a state as to the construction to be
given its own constitution and its W
laws. He then spoke for some time of
the jury law, which he said has been COM
mon all over the United States and always
the law was substantially the same as
those Of New York, Michigan, Arkansas,
Colorado and Nebraska. The recent
changes in the jury law of the states had
for their purpose and object the procure
ment of a better class and more intelligent
class of men as jurors.
is 1t possible, the attorney general
asked that the states are to be so bound
by the federal constitution that they can
not change their jury laws in accordance
with the changing conditions of their
social and political life?' He hoped the
court would maturely consider the far.
reaching consequences OF the construction
which the petitioners desired to have
given to the fourteenth amendment.
The attorney general then took up the
case of the prisoners Fielden and Spies.
lie said he understood it would be urged
by counsel of the other side that they
being Observation-Disclosures an E~nglishman
and Spies a German-they were protected
by the treaties between the United States
and their respective governments; that
they would have immunity, because the
treaties provided that citizens of England
and Germany living in the United States
should nave all the rights and privileges
guaranteed by law to citizens of the
United States at the time the treaties
were ratified.
Chief Justice-ln what respect is it
said that this violates citizenship Of
Great Britain?
Gen. Butler-They were to have all the
privileges of Americans at the date of the
treaties, and among those privileges we
contend was the trial by jury then in
force. No law could be passed to change
their condition under the organic law
the highest law of the land.
Attorney General Hunt replied that If
this were so then the prisoners, without
being citizens, were privileged persons,
above the laws of the state, which they
set at defiance.
At this point the hour for adjournment
arrived and further argument was post
poned until to morrow.